Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
MSNBCW 4
CNNW 3
LANGUAGE
English 17
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
and that there had been al qaeda influence to individuals from other countries that had come in. and that it was premeditated and planned. and i just don't understand why the administration would have susan rice go on television and say that the views essentially of the president of libya just didn't matter. she completely discounted them. that doesn't make sense to me. >> you suggested she was behaving politically. fair enough, if that's the case. what would be the political purpose in denying the role of terrorism in this act, the central role of terrorism, organized terrorism, in the death of ambassador stevens? what would be her purpose politically in that? >> i believe that the administration wanted to portray libya as an unqualified success story. and ambassador rice was one of the chief advocates of our involvement in libya, so arguably had a personal stake in that as -- contrary of the administration to say libya was awash with weapons, that there was a growing al qaeda presence, that there were training camps for islamic extremists, particularly near benghazi. and that
under oath in front of congress that he had no idea how the words al-qaeda and other phrases were removed from the talking points that cia prepared and later were reinserted. he said he didn't know how that happened, and he put out a statement earlier this week saying it happened in his shop. those are two totally contradictory things he's saying. gregg: and by the way, it's a crime to lie to congress. but let me move on. the president's news conference last week, he said the people elected him to work with the other side and not to get into partisan fights. but, steve, if he nominates rice to be the next secretary of state, wouldn't that trigger a major partisan fight, and would he really do that when, after all, he's trying to reach a bipartisan deal to avoid the fiscal cliff? >> right. look, i would be surprised if the president put her forward given everything that we've seen. there were one or two scenarios, right? either she was, this was a tryout for her and she failed, or it was the case that they sent her out on purpose as the president suggested when he said they sent ou
there and david petraeus came along and said there are reasons why they took out the al-qaeda stuff from the talking points that rice delivered on the air and i think that argument among the elites is kind of prevailing and i think that it means that if the president does appoint-- i think the confirmation goes quickly. >> not everybody agrees though. maure maureen dowd rights when a gang shows up with rpg's in a place of hot bed sympathizer and extremist training camps. >> it's not over a movie. she should have been savvy enough to wonder why the wily hillary was avoiding the talk shows. and the dop diplomate needs to show more sensitivity and independence traits clinton has demonstrated in abundance and obama can do better at state than susan rice. >> and an article called susan rice term -- >> i was disappointing in the president, what she's said about regime change in african and countries and not looking more to her resume'. >> let me pull up a point on racism and sexism business. it never cuts the other way. liberals can criticize conservative african-american as conservative black
questions in the media. he says general petraeus * said the cia knew within 24 hours al qaeda was behind it but susan rice did not use that information on the talk shows saying the siege resulted from a spontaneous protest. last thursday clapper tells one story and now according to his spokesman its is just the opposite. do you think he is not still telling the truth? >> it's hard to know. it's the old quote. i'm not mad you lied to me. i'm mad i can't believe anything you tell me. this is the head our intelligence an changes his mind within 24 hours. today is the 70th day since four our fellow americans were murdered. we are talking about susan rice's career progression and james clapper's ability to keep a fact straight and desperate housewives having an affair with generals. gregg: and four people are dead. we are talking about a tragedy here. murdered by terrorists. in reference to james clapper, one story last week, now a different story. it's a crime to lie to congress. do you think a serious look at that needs to be undertaken by perhaps an independent prosecutor? >> it depends. i
's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. and clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people, was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia said clearly that that information was wrong. >> dana bash, let me bring you in, senior congressional correspondent, i think i saw you in the crush of reporters earlier today on the hill. set me straight. heading into this closed door meeting, the story was the senators seemed to be -- or john mccain seemed to be backing off some of the criticism of ambassador rice, and in listening to that stakeout and the three senators i'm hearing words like troubled and failed and bad. what happened in the meeting? >> reporter: well, the reason i'm told that they did soften the rhetoric and they did going into this meeting is because susan rice requested a meeting and the senators said that they felt that it was the right thing to do to kind of ease up on her publicly while they were waiting to h
briefing said this was a terrorist attack with groups connected to al qaeda. and then the up classified talking points gave a very different impression. the person who delivered those talking points was susan rice. she said something republicans believe wasn't true. >> i don't follow that logic. why would she know it wasn't true? and second of all -- >> because the classified information at the time contradicted it. >> right, but the point is, intelligence contradicts itself all the time. in fact, you have numerous channels of intelligence can be both a terrorist attack and people there because of the movie, and so if you were given one set of talking points that are classified and then a litter iteration that are unclassified, do you go back to the cia and say you guys are contradicting yourself? >> maybe it's the intelligence community here, and there are reasons why you would want to obscure the fact that we would know who the terrorists were, if there was -- >> which is petraeus' argument. >> i don't necessarily buy that either. but the point being at the time, the intelligence comm
that dni now they say they were the ones who took the word al-qaeda out of the memo. >> this is the tech time that clapper has offered what amounted to a political defense of the administration. there had been obviously lots of questions raised about this last week. everybody said we don't know how the are language was pulled out. it's also the second time that clapper seems to have contradicted something he said before. if you look back to the stiary his office released, he said we initially assessed this has been a spontaneous demonstration. we revise that had assessment to reflect the fact we understood it was a terrorist attack -- that is not what people testified to. a number of intelligence officials on capitol hill saying under oath, we need immediately this was a terrorist attack. those two things, you put those statements next to each other that is flat contradiction. how do we have those contradictions two months after this. >> greta: from the state department phone call, fox excluded from the c.i.a. briefing and when the explanation when the dni, they don't want us to know --
three weeks before an election. >>reporter: the talking points that stripped out language including al qaeda, senators say she has classified material that showed evidence of terrorists. >> when you have a position of ambassador to the united nations you go classified talking points in your responsibility for the job. >>reporter: and her meeting this afternoon with senator lieberman, chair of the homeland security who is running their own investigation. >>shepard: what are the white house and ambassador rice saying? >>reporter: after the meeting she put out a statement which reads in part and i quote, "we explained the talking points provided by the intelligence community and the initial assessment upon which they were based were incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi." the white house briefing spokesman carney minimized the impact of her statements on the sunday talk shows and he turned the focus on to the importance of finding who was responsible. >> people are more interested in talking points to a sunday show several months ago than they are i
speaking out. james clapper saying he is the one who took out al qaeda talking points after originally saying he had no idea who did it. so who should we all believe here? joining us now is former cia covert operations officer mike baker live in boise idaho at 3:15 a.m. good to see you, mike. >> thank you. good to see you and thank you for the opportunity. >> what do we make of all of this after what susan rice has come out and said? she clearly relayed the intel given to her. should we expect a diplomat to do more than that. to go beyond and ask questions before relay ago story to the media. >> well, right. not just a diplomat but the person that president obama claims would be a perfect secretary of state to replace secretary clinton. ambassador rice is stying five days after the attack. now it's three mons on from the attack and we are still kind of around with the potential investigation. getting people in to testify. but ambassador rice is saying five days after the attack all she did, at the behest of the white house was go on the sunday morning talk show circuit and rely entirel
in may 2003 that we found the wmds in iraq. dick cheney and condoleezza rice talked about links to al qaeda in iraq. you've never made up for those huge, serious, significant lies in the arena of foreign policy. and now you're picking apart, you know, basically the very early and ultimately not misleading with regard to foreign policy decisions, statements that this diplomat made. >> one thing we're learning right now the meeting with ambassador rice and senator corker is happening as we speak so a little earlier than that noontime appointment. but the one thing we heard also from senator barrasso in the last hour was john considerry's name floated out and it would be easier for him to sail through. you had the opportunity to work with john kerry before. >> sure. >> when we hear about this, is that really what the game, as joy-ann said, this machiavellian game, basically let's get kerry in this position and then scott brown could take over his seat, run for that seat in massachusetts, we get scott brownbach in? >> this is a little delicate because i know so many people involved. this
took out al-qaeda talking points after originally saying he had no idea who did it. so who should we really believe? maybe santa can help us. nope. instead we got michael goodwin. you can find his columns in the "new york post" and fox news. who is telling the truth and who is lying? >> look, you ask who we should believe? i think no one. that's the whole point of putting people under oath. then supposedly get the truth or we get perjury. i believe susan rice had to know better before she made those comments. i just recently reread president obama's speech to the u.n. where there is no question he is saying the video did it. all of that was false. they all had reason to know it was false. clapper is just a clown. i mean, he does this all the time. and the idea that james clapper can take responsibility for making the changes, why isn't president obama furious at him? why doesn't president obama fire him today if the president really believed that clapper made a huge mistake? >> gretchen: that's a loaded question because as director of national intelligence to say one thing and then s
americans, including the u.s. ambassador. the dni spokesman says changing the wording about al qaeda to extremists was a decision to protect sources and not a political move. gop lawmakers have sharply criticized ambassador susan rice for the talking points. >>> 22 people were hurt in an explosion on a bus in tell aviv. hamas praised the attack but did not claim responsibility. and we have new pictures of an explosion in gaza city. there it is there. officials say at least 142 people have been killed in the eight-day conflict and more than 1,000 people have been wounded. israeli authorities say five people have been killed in israel. 70 more have been wounded. >>> secretary of state hillary clinton condemned that bus attack in tel aviv as she scrambles to salvage any hope for a peace agreement. for the second straight day she's meeting with prime minister benjamin netanyahu. earlier, she sat down with palestinian president mahmoud abbas in the west bank. and now she is sitting down with the egyptian president, mohamed morsi, who is trying to broker a peace deal. the bus attack in tel
. there is no question. >> there is a question. >> how the al qaeda references were eliminated. was it james clapper? was it the justice department? was it somebody else. that we don't know the answer to and maybe the confirmation hearings for susan rice will reveal that. however, i think what's striking about this "washington post" piece, and again, it is online by stephanie mccrummon anybody can read it, how obvious it is they are setting her to run for president in 2016. as soon as she leaves the state dipt which will be probably next, a little while, articles like this will be seen, part of a fund-raising pitch. hillary is your obvious choice, democrats to run for president. look at all the puffy praise. every bad thing that happened in the obama administration foreign policy not saying all bad but this article now wipes all those away. she is beloved. everybody loves her. she spent 30 years in public service which i don't quite understand how they got the math on that. nonetheless they're saying it that way. and i think it's reminder what we have to look forward to in the next four years. >> th
references to al qaeda being involved. so another question for her would clearly be, who changed that, who decided not to include that, right? >> let's come to the second point. that she says she simply read these talking points and if that's true, really poses a much more fundamental question. why did she read the talking points? and it goes to a basic disagreement about how senior officials function in government. there are plenty of people, and i can same secretaries of state, who simply regurgitate what their bureaucracies produced for them, who relied on talking points. talking points were put in front of them and they read them. that is one way to approach government. that is not the way i approached government and got me in considerable trouble from time to time. if that is the way she approached it i think there is question whether from a point of view of judgment that is something that you want to see perpetuated. martha: talk about the politics of all of this for a moment because there's a reason that susan rice requested these meetings with these three senators. we know she is b
al-qaeda, jon. jon: still so many questions left to answer. catherine herridge, thank you. >> reporter: you're welcome. jon: well, both senators mccabe and ayotte will appear on fox news channel earlier today. senator ayotte will speak with megyn kelly on "america live" which comes to you right after "happening now." and then on your world, 4 p.m. eastern time, neil cavuto will talk with senator mccain, his first formal interview since today's meeting with ambassador rice, you'll want to hear what both senators have to say. jenna: new concerns right now, the president and republicans may not be able to reach a deal on that looming fiscal cliff. the president meeting with small business owners at the white house despite signs that talks are stalling on capitol hill. james rosen is live at the white house and, james, just last week folks were saying there's some optimism coming out of these talks. why now is there a feeling that maybe things respect going as well? >> reporter: let's face it, jenna, a trained observer could be forgiving for serving the state of these fiscal c
, what happened is he told the senators that it was actually the fbi who took al qaeda references out of the unclassified talking points. only to call back several hours later saying, oops, i was wrong, it wasn't the fbi, it was the cia. here is what lindsey graham said about that. >> i can't help but feel incredibly disappointed that we were told something at 10:00 a.m. that couldn't withstand scrutiny for six hours. and is totally inconsistent with what we were told the day before. we have five different explanations of who changed the talking points to take out benghazi. and four different reasons. this is becoming a joke. >> so what these meetings least this particular issue has done is added fuel to the fire and it is not like, you needed to add any more fuel to the fire, especially for senators like lindsey graham who is already really publicly outraged about a lot of issues dealing with the benghazi attack. >> this is just one more. one more. dana bash, thank you. >>> after trashing the hit tv show "two and a half men," the actor angus jones, now back tracking from his controve
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)